Allahabad Court March 1958 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhagwan Dass and Co. Private Ltd., Dehradun Vs. the Income-tax Officer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All800
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an application for a certificate under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution and Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of an order passed by this Court on 28th February, 1958, on a petition for issue of writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. So far as Article 132 of the Constitution is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has not advanced any arguments at all to show that the case, which came up before this Court, or the appeal which is sought to be taken before the Supreme Court raises any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Article 132 of the Constitution is, therefore, clearly not applicable. 2. The application has been argued before us by learned counsel for the applicant under Article 133 of the Constitution and Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was urged by learned counsel that the applicant was entitled to a certificate as of right under Article 133(1)...
Mahendra Pal Singh and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All313; 1959CriLJ541
ORDERA.P. Srivastava, J. 1. This is an application for the review of an order made by this Court on the 27th of February, 1958. The provision under which the application has been made has been mentioned at the top of the application as Section 561A, Cr. P. C.2. It appears that the applicants were convicted by a Magistrate First Class, Bareilly under Section 325, I. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to undergo one year's Rule 1, and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. An appeal was preferred to the Sessions judge but failed. An application in revision was then filed on their behalf in this Court and was rejected by the order now sought to be reviewed.It was held that there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate court which concluded the case against the applicants and that the sentence also did not appear to be excessive. At the time when the revision application was considered the counsel for the applicants was heard at some length and the order passed shows that the app...
Dharam Deo Gupta Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All865; 1958CriLJ1453
ORDERA.N. Mulla, J. 1. Sri Dharam Deo Gupta, the applicant in this case, has been convicted on two charges under the Drugs Act 1940 (Act No. XXIII of 1940). He was held to have contravened the provisions of Section 18(a)(i) as well as Section 18(a)(ii) of the said Act. He was, therefore, convicted under Section 27 of the said Act to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 on both the counts by the trial court. The appellate court upheld his conviction under both the counts, but set aside the sentence of imprisonment under these, two counts. The applicant has now come up in revision before this Court. 2. The applicant was the Managing Director of a company Known as 'The New International Chemicals Ltd., which had its Depots at Lucknow as well as Barabanki. This company did not manufacture any drug, but it dealt with drugs. In a part of the premises of the said firm at Lucknow there was another firm which was known as 'Asha Medical Stores, Lucknow'. The proprietor of thi...
Sardar Iqbal Singh and ors. Vs. the Municipal Board, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All186
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners, who are five in number own between them a considerable number of rickshaws which they want to ply for hire within the limits of the Lucknow Municipality. Under the relevant bye-laws, however, no person may ply a rickshaw within those limits without first obtaining a license from the Municipal Board, and it is the petitioners' complaint that the Board has refused, without adequate or indeed any justification, to grant them the requisite licences, and that they are therefore unable to ply their rickshaws and are accordingly put to great loss. The Municipal Board, it may be observed, was superseded in the year 1948, and at all material times its affairs have been administered by an Administrator.2. There have been a series of disputes between the Board and rickshaw-owners which go back to the year 1951, and it would, I think, be unnecessary for the purposes of this petition to refer to these di...
Chaturbhuj Chunnilal Vs. Election Tribunal, Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All809
V. Bhargava, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise the same identical important question of interpretation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended up-to-date (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequently they were heard together and are being decided by one single judgment.2. The petitioners in both the petitions are the persons who presented election petitions to the Election Commission under Section 81 of the Act. In both cases, the petitioners were unsuccessful candidates at the last election for the U. P. Legislative Assembly and they presented election petitions impleading as respondents in those petitions the successful candidates. In each of the two constituencies, there was one other candidate who had withdrawn his candidature under Section 37 of the Act by a notice in writing to the Returning Officer. In the election petitions there were allegations of corrupt practices having been committed by the individuals who had w...
Shambhoo Ji Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All656; (1958)IILLJ686All
ORDERJ. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was a permanent em-ployee in the Collectorate at Orai. A selection took place for appointment to the post of Panchayat Inspector, The petitioner was selected for that post and was appointed as the Panchayat Inspector, Orai on 10-6-1949. His case is that after his appointment as Panchayat Inspector he was anxious to improve his educational qualifications and therefore obtained permission of the District Magistrate of Orai for joining B. A. Classes in D. V. College at Orai.On 2-12-1953 the Joint Director of Panchayat Raj Department, U. P. Lucknow served upon the petitioner a charge-sheet containing seven charges and asked him to explain why he should not be properly punished. The petitioner's case is that in substance there was only one charge and the so-called other six charges were only the particulars of this charge, the charge being that the petitioner had drawn false travelling allowances on dates when he was actually present in the College. The da...
Sat NaraIn Pandey Vs. Dhurva Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All22
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's right, or in the alternative, for possession over certain zamindari property specified at the foot of the plaint.2. According to the plaint the plaintiff's father Beni Prasad Pande and Jamna Prasad Pande were real brothers and they were joint. Jamna Prasad died on 23-11-1943, leaving behind him his widow Smt. Ramraji who was defendant No. 2 in the court below and a daughter Smt. Chhabraji, defendant No. 1. Both of them are dead and it is the adopted son of Chhabraji who is respondent in the present case.3. The plaintiff's case was that according to the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, Smt. Ramraji was only entitled to a widow's estate but she surrendered the same in his favour by executing a deed dated 31-1-44 by virture of which the plaintiff said, he became the exclusive owner and was entitled to the declaration, or if he is found to be out of possession, the possession of the...
Mohd. Mustafa Ali Khan Vs. Raj Rajeshwari Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All583
Mootham, C.J.1. This is a reference made to this Court under Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act by the Chief inspector of Stamps.2. The question is whether a certain promissory-note is chargeable to stamp duty as a bond, The promissory-note reads thus :'On demand I promise to pay at Gonda to the Court of Wards, Utraula, Bilaspur Estate, district Gonda, the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at 3 per cent. per annum for value received by me on 5-7-'5l.'This document, which was duly stamped, as a promissory-note, was signed by the executant and bears the signatures of two witnesses.3. A bond is defined in Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act as including'any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another.'The promissory-note the subject of this reference is attested by a witness and, not being expressed to be payable to order or bearer, prima facie comes within the ambit of this definition. Explanation (J) to Section ...
Munna Lal and anr. Vs. Abir Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All766
A.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application for refund of court-fee. The circumstances in which it has arisen are not in dispute. The applicants filed a First Appeal in this Court. They valued it at Rs. 7,500/- and paid a court-fee of Rs. 710/-. The decree against which the appeal has been filed was a conditional decree and it had been provided in it that if the plaintiffs-made any default in making a certain payment within the time allowed the suit shall stand dismissed. After the appeal had been filed in this Court the plaintiffs made a default which resulted in the automatic dismissal of the suit. The appeal filed by the defendants-appellants in this Court against the decree thus became infructuous and the appellants applied for the withdrawal of the same before it was formally admitted by this Court.This Court permitted the appeal to be withdrawn. The appellants then made the application which has been referred to this Full Bench for disposal. They prayed in it that the court-fee ...
Satya Deo Gupta Vs. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All823
B. Dayal, J. 1. These are two connected appeals under Section 76 of the Indian Trade Marks Act. Appeal No. 62 of 1954 has been filed by Shri Satya Deo Cupta, Proprietor of Roop Bilas Co., while the other appeal No. 69 of 1954 has been filed by the Amritdhara Pharmacy against Shri Satya Deo Gupta. The relevant facts, which have given rise to these appeals, may be shortly stated : On the 19th of July, 1950, Shri Satya Deo Gupta filed an application for registration of a trade mark in respect of a biochemical medicine in class 5 for registering his trade mark as 'Lakshman Dhara.' This application was advertised in the trade marks journal and an opposition was put in by the Amritdhara Pharmacy. The case of the opposition was that in the year 1901 Pt. Thakur Datt Sharma started preparation and sale of an ayurvcdic medicine and called it by the name of Amritki-Dhara. Later on in 1903, he altered this-mark and started the use of the name of 'Amritdhara' and from that date onwards, that name h...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »